2025 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[SB15]

Agreed. Don't understand the narrative that the McLaren is the most reliant on that technology.

Well quite obviously they are, Ferrari seems the least reliant on the technology and Mercedes FW won't function no different from the RedBull's based on how it's designed after the TD is put in place.

Based on what proof from this season?

Didn't Redbull and Mercedes test 2 different front wing configurations in testing?

[f1isgood]

Well quite obviously they are, Ferrari seems the least reliant on the technology and Mercedes FW won't function no different from the RedBull's based on how it's designed after the TD is put in place.

Based on what proof from this season?

Didn't Redbull and Mercedes test 2 different front wing configurations in testing?

Red Bull brought a wing/floor upgrade on the final day of test and have stuck with that since.

[SB15]

Based on what proof from this season?

Didn't Redbull and Mercedes test 2 different front wing configurations in testing?

Red Bull brought a wing/floor upgrade on the final day of test and have stuck with that since.

Gotcha thank you!

[Mansell89]

Do we have much detail as to what to expect (and when) upgrade wise?

This to me looks by far and away the best Merc car of this current regulation - it obviously lacks the responsiveness of the McLaren but largely this seasons car looks like it has the wider operational window, compliant car, no major surprises.

Can they find the bit of magic that McLaren have?

It will need to be a great update to do so, and of course you’d think after that focus will be on 2026.

[OverheatedTurbo]

Do we have much detail as to what to expect (and when) upgrade wise?

This to me looks by far and away the best Merc car of this current regulation - it obviously lacks the responsiveness of the McLaren but largely this seasons car looks like it has the wider operational window, compliant car, no major surprises.

Can they find the bit of magic that McLaren have?

It will need to be a great update to do so, and of course you’d think after that focus will be on 2026.

Focus is tyre management and low speed corners I believe. Thats what I saw being thrown around in X. We’ll just have to wait and see.

[AR3-GP]

Haven’t seen this posted

“'Kimi felt unwell on Sunday morning. Probably it was related to something that he was eating the day before. Yeah, it was a very difficult race not to feel 100% of your energy but he did pretty well. We’ve seen all the drivers very tired after the race. So another good step of learning for Kimi. And they’re going into Miami now.'”

https://www.racefans.net/2025/04/24/rou ... pril-2025/

[Chuckjr]

The W16 will never become faster than MCL.

Hindsight maybe, but they should've kept Elliot and stick to their original idea. Since the switch to hybrid W14B, they were always gonna be steps behind. Elliot was a capable engineer and knew what he was doing. They were 3rd best team in 2022 and 2nd best in 2023, this is when they were running their zero pod idea. Now they've gone from copying Red Bull -> to Aston Martin -> to Red Bull again.

Elliot was blind to the floor and suspension requirements of the ground effect. But I think he was very advanced on the Zeropod concept.
With the knowledge the team has now on floor and suspension aero-kinematics, they should have dared to return to Zero pod on the new floor platform.
The issues in 2022 were truly based on lack of understanding of the floor. The most visual thing people saw were the engine cover and sidepods, but those were minor.
Floor profile, floor edge, and suspension design would have fixed W13.
Moving Elliot was not 100% bad. A technical director needs to consider everything, not just aero, and they need to be open to ideas and theories from all quarters inside the time. Elliot came across as being a little stubborn, based on media comments. I do not know the guy and could be wrong, but changes were not forthcoming for 2 years.

Why do you insist on the proven failed zero concept? I called it a failure when it came out. You have been pressing it for years and even Merc saw--with buildings of engineering, data, and research--that it did not work. You have less data by quantum leagues than Merc. Imo, it misleads the forum and brings false hope based on little data to push a proven failed concept.

[SB15]

The W16 will never become faster than MCL.

Hindsight maybe, but they should've kept Elliot and stick to their original idea. Since the switch to hybrid W14B, they were always gonna be steps behind. Elliot was a capable engineer and knew what he was doing. They were 3rd best team in 2022 and 2nd best in 2023, this is when they were running their zero pod idea. Now they've gone from copying Red Bull -> to Aston Martin -> to Red Bull again.

Elliot was blind to the floor and suspension requirements of the ground effect. But I think he was very advanced on the Zeropod concept.
With the knowledge the team has now on floor and suspension aero-kinematics, they should have dared to return to Zero pod on the new floor platform.
The issues in 2022 were truly based on lack of understanding of the floor. The most visual thing people saw were the engine cover and sidepods, but those were minor.
Floor profile, floor edge, and suspension design would have fixed W13.
Moving Elliot was not 100% bad. A technical director needs to consider everything, not just aero, and they need to be open to ideas and theories from all quarters inside the time. Elliot came across as being a little stubborn, based on media comments. I do not know the guy and could be wrong, but changes were not forthcoming for 2 years.

Why do you insist on the proven failed zero concept? I called it a failure when it came out. You have been pressing it for years and even Merc saw--with buildings of engineering, data, and research--that it did not work. You have less data by quantum leagues than Merc. Imo, it misleads the forum and brings false hope based on little data to push a proven failed concept.

Well this a forum to discuss anything, yes It was a failed concept in “THESE” sets of regulations, but since the new regulations will basically be what the W13 and Launch-Spec W14 fundamentally function as (Inwash design), Mercedes to me personally looks to be 4 years ahead of the competition.

I believe that the data wasn’t correlating because the way these current regulations were designed to function, however I don’t think the data in the wind tunnel lied to them how much downforce they would gain over the rest of competition.

James Allison said there really wasn’t much wrong with the concept, just the other things like floor design, cockpit positioning and suspension design.

The W13 concept, to me personally, was in the wrong era, but still has massive potential.

[Emag]

Well this a forum to discuss anything, yes It was a failed concept in “THESE” sets of regulations, but since the new regulations will basically be what the W13 and Launch-Spec W14 fundamentally function as (Inwash design), Mercedes to me personally looks to be 4 years ahead of the competition.

I believe that the data wasn’t correlating because the way these current regulations were designed to function, however I don’t think the data in the wind tunnel lied to them how much downforce they would gain over the rest of competition.

James Allison said there really wasn’t much wrong with the concept, just the other things like floor design, cockpit positioning and suspension design.

The W13 concept, to me personally, was in the wrong era, but still has massive potential.

You're also making the assumption that everyone else was oblivious to the zero-pod concept, when it's equally possible that everyone at the very least considered it, but Mercedes were the only ones who did not evaluate the restrictions and requirements properly to get the concept to work on the regulation set.

Last season in particular showed that peak downforce is nothing in this current era. It's naive to say Mercedes had the best concept in hand when it's obvious it was impossible to get the numbers out of it. In the end they gave it up and are now doing what everyone else is doing. Next year is an unknown. We can assume the PU will be on the competitive side (if not the most competitive), but to say that any team has an aerodynamic advantage already is just really wrong.

[ringo]

The W16 will never become faster than MCL.

Hindsight maybe, but they should've kept Elliot and stick to their original idea. Since the switch to hybrid W14B, they were always gonna be steps behind. Elliot was a capable engineer and knew what he was doing. They were 3rd best team in 2022 and 2nd best in 2023, this is when they were running their zero pod idea. Now they've gone from copying Red Bull -> to Aston Martin -> to Red Bull again.

Elliot was blind to the floor and suspension requirements of the ground effect. But I think he was very advanced on the Zeropod concept.
With the knowledge the team has now on floor and suspension aero-kinematics, they should have dared to return to Zero pod on the new floor platform.
The issues in 2022 were truly based on lack of understanding of the floor. The most visual thing people saw were the engine cover and sidepods, but those were minor.
Floor profile, floor edge, and suspension design would have fixed W13.
Moving Elliot was not 100% bad. A technical director needs to consider everything, not just aero, and they need to be open to ideas and theories from all quarters inside the time. Elliot came across as being a little stubborn, based on media comments. I do not know the guy and could be wrong, but changes were not forthcoming for 2 years.

Why do you insist on the proven failed zero concept? I called it a failure when it came out. You have been pressing it for years and even Merc saw--with buildings of engineering, data, and research--that it did not work. You have less data by quantum leagues than Merc. Imo, it misleads the forum and brings false hope based on little data to push a proven failed concept.

The funny thing is that there was so much belief in the bulky sidepods with no undercut, an pushing away wheel wake etc, and that concept is now extinct.
I have been consistent on that front from the start of the regs. The sidepods weren't the silver bullet.
The bulk of performance is supsension and floor related.
The sidepods and cover can make a difference when all else is equal.
At this point with the understanding that the teams have now, an evolved zero pod concept would have a distinct advantage.
We see now where the front running teams have migrated to vertical inlets close to the body. It's not by chance.
Another zero pod concept copied today is the "overbite" blade ahead of the sidepod inlet.
Zero pod was ahead of it's time, but Mercedes were behind the clock on understanding ground effect with the floor and floor edge.

[Farnborough]

Elliot was blind to the floor and suspension requirements of the ground effect. But I think he was very advanced on the Zeropod concept.
With the knowledge the team has now on floor and suspension aero-kinematics, they should have dared to return to Zero pod on the new floor platform.
The issues in 2022 were truly based on lack of understanding of the floor. The most visual thing people saw were the engine cover and sidepods, but those were minor.
Floor profile, floor edge, and suspension design would have fixed W13.
Moving Elliot was not 100% bad. A technical director needs to consider everything, not just aero, and they need to be open to ideas and theories from all quarters inside the time. Elliot came across as being a little stubborn, based on media comments. I do not know the guy and could be wrong, but changes were not forthcoming for 2 years.

Why do you insist on the proven failed zero concept? I called it a failure when it came out. You have been pressing it for years and even Merc saw--with buildings of engineering, data, and research--that it did not work. You have less data by quantum leagues than Merc. Imo, it misleads the forum and brings false hope based on little data to push a proven failed concept.

The funny thing is that there was so much belief in the bulky sidepods with no undercut, an pushing away wheel wake etc, and that concept is now extinct.
I have been consistent on that front from the start of the regs. The sidepods weren't the silver bullet.
The bulk of performance is supsension and floor related.
The sidepods and cover can make a difference when all else is equal.
At this point with the understanding that the teams have now, an evolved zero pod concept would have a distinct advantage.
We see now where the front running teams have migrated to vertical inlets close to the body. It's not by chance.
Another zero pod concept copied today is the "overbite" blade ahead of the sidepod inlet.
Zero pod was ahead of it's time, but Mercedes were behind the clock on understanding ground effect with the floor and floor edge.

Where is the data you base this on ? Its just a story in imagination otherwise.

As noted already, proven by MB themselves as abject failure. In the end they themselves, with all their empirical data available (far more than anyone on here ) proved what failure that was. Factually there's no doubt in that which can be brought to forum in discussion.

[Lasssept]

AMuS

Ferrari and Red Bull are behind schedule with the development of the engine for 2026.

It is rumoured that Mercedes is well on the way to delivering the best power unit.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... -red-bull/

[SB15]

Elliot was blind to the floor and suspension requirements of the ground effect. But I think he was very advanced on the Zeropod concept.
With the knowledge the team has now on floor and suspension aero-kinematics, they should have dared to return to Zero pod on the new floor platform.
The issues in 2022 were truly based on lack of understanding of the floor. The most visual thing people saw were the engine cover and sidepods, but those were minor.
Floor profile, floor edge, and suspension design would have fixed W13.
Moving Elliot was not 100% bad. A technical director needs to consider everything, not just aero, and they need to be open to ideas and theories from all quarters inside the time. Elliot came across as being a little stubborn, based on media comments. I do not know the guy and could be wrong, but changes were not forthcoming for 2 years.

Why do you insist on the proven failed zero concept? I called it a failure when it came out. You have been pressing it for years and even Merc saw--with buildings of engineering, data, and research--that it did not work. You have less data by quantum leagues than Merc. Imo, it misleads the forum and brings false hope based on little data to push a proven failed concept.

The funny thing is that there was so much belief in the bulky sidepods with no undercut, an pushing away wheel wake etc, and that concept is now extinct.
I have been consistent on that front from the start of the regs. The sidepods weren't the silver bullet.
The bulk of performance is supsension and floor related.
The sidepods and cover can make a difference when all else is equal.
At this point with the understanding that the teams have now, an evolved zero pod concept would have a distinct advantage.
We see now where the front running teams have migrated to vertical inlets close to the body. It's not by chance.
Another zero pod concept copied today is the "overbite" blade ahead of the sidepod inlet.
Zero pod was ahead of it's time, but Mercedes were behind the clock on understanding ground effect with the floor and floor edge.

Exactly my point, even if I was right or exceptionally wrong, you can't call it a coincidence that the new regs are in favor of Zero-pod concept that all teams are going to look at and looking at rumors about who has the engine advantage, looks like History is about to repeat itself at Mercedes because they look to have a clear advantage in both engine and aero departments.

[ringo]

Why do you insist on the proven failed zero concept? I called it a failure when it came out. You have been pressing it for years and even Merc saw--with buildings of engineering, data, and research--that it did not work. You have less data by quantum leagues than Merc. Imo, it misleads the forum and brings false hope based on little data to push a proven failed concept.

The funny thing is that there was so much belief in the bulky sidepods with no undercut, an pushing away wheel wake etc, and that concept is now extinct.
I have been consistent on that front from the start of the regs. The sidepods weren't the silver bullet.
The bulk of performance is supsension and floor related.
The sidepods and cover can make a difference when all else is equal.
At this point with the understanding that the teams have now, an evolved zero pod concept would have a distinct advantage.
We see now where the front running teams have migrated to vertical inlets close to the body. It's not by chance.
Another zero pod concept copied today is the "overbite" blade ahead of the sidepod inlet.
Zero pod was ahead of it's time, but Mercedes were behind the clock on understanding ground effect with the floor and floor edge.

Where is the data you base this on ? Its just a story in imagination otherwise.

As noted already, proven by MB themselves as abject failure. In the end they themselves, with all their empirical data available (far more than anyone on here ) proved what failure that was. Factually there's no doubt in that which can be brought to forum in discussion.

Where is the data that affirmed that the bulky pods were the cat's pajamas of aerodynamics?
We had some pretty visuals from the usual speculation sensationalists on youtube. A lot of F1 fans were convinced from the content that was put out there, but there wasn't any real substantial data to support a lot it.
We are seeing the same now with Ferrari and the speculations around their aero and gearbox. Lot's of content out there with little facts.

Things have gone awfully quiet at Mercedes because the media circus left with Hamilton. It's a blessing and a curse because Mercedes is a very innovative team. They usually work on interesting concepts but there seems to be less eyes and interest on what this team is doing with their car, the challenges they're having, and what they have in the pipeline for development.

[OverheatedTurbo]

The funny thing is that there was so much belief in the bulky sidepods with no undercut, an pushing away wheel wake etc, and that concept is now extinct.
I have been consistent on that front from the start of the regs. The sidepods weren't the silver bullet.
The bulk of performance is supsension and floor related.
The sidepods and cover can make a difference when all else is equal.
At this point with the understanding that the teams have now, an evolved zero pod concept would have a distinct advantage.
We see now where the front running teams have migrated to vertical inlets close to the body. It's not by chance.
Another zero pod concept copied today is the "overbite" blade ahead of the sidepod inlet.
Zero pod was ahead of it's time, but Mercedes were behind the clock on understanding ground effect with the floor and floor edge.

Where is the data you base this on ? Its just a story in imagination otherwise.

As noted already, proven by MB themselves as abject failure. In the end they themselves, with all their empirical data available (far more than anyone on here ) proved what failure that was. Factually there's no doubt in that which can be brought to forum in discussion.

Where is the data that affirmed that the bulky pods were the cat's pajamas of aerodynamics?
We had some pretty visuals from the usual speculation sensationalists on youtube. A lot of F1 fans were convinced from the content that was put out there, but there wasn't any real substantial data to support a lot it.
We are seeing the same now with Ferrari and the speculations around their aero and gearbox. Lot's of content out there with little facts.

Things have gone awfully quiet at Mercedes because the media circus left with Hamilton. It's a blessing and a curse because Mercedes is a very innovative team. They usually work on interesting concepts but there seems to be less eyes and interest on what this team is doing with their car, the challenges they're having, and what they have in the pipeline for development.

I think it’s better this way.